4.4 Article

Intraluminal pressure changes in vivo in the middle and distal pig ureter during propagation of a peristaltic wave

Journal

UROLOGY
Volume 59, Issue 2, Pages 298-302

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0090-4295(01)01550-3

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives. To establish the characteristics of mechanical activity during ureteral peristalsis and unidirectional bolus transport, pressure changes in the middle and distal (juxtavesical and ureterovesical junction) porcine ureter were quantified in vivo. Methods. Five female New Yorkshire pigs (50 to 60 kg) were studied under halothane anesthesia. The endoscopic approach was used to position an 8-channel 6F perfusion catheter under direct vision into the distal ureter by way of the orifice. Ureteral activity was studied in two separate sessions at 1-week intervals. The pressure, propagation velocity, and length of the peristaltic waves were analyzed. Results. The average maximal pressure in a not previously instrumented ureter amounted to 35.7 +/- 1.2 cm H2O in the mid-ureter, and decreased to 19.4 +/- 1.3 cm H2O in the juxtavesical ureter (P < 0.001) and further to 7.2 ± 1.0 cm H2O (P < 0.001) in the submucosal segment. The propagation velocity of the peristaltic wave through the ureter was 2.1 +/- 1.3 cm/s. The length of the pressure peak was 5.9 +/- 1.6 cm. Conclusions. A ureteral peristaltic contraction wave travels at approximately 2 cm/s and is approximately 6 cm long. It is responsible for the unidirectional transport of a urinary bolus and itself acts as an active antireflux mechanism. The maximal pressure in the lumen of the ureter decreased from proximally to distally, but remains sufficiently high at the ureterovesical junction to prevent retrograde urine leakage when the ureter empties its urinary bolus into the bladder and the orifice is open. UROLOGY 59: 298-302, 2002. (C) 2002, Elsevier Science Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available